Author
Topic: TOT's Heretical Beliefs (Read 9146 times)

Thanks Screwtape for this suggestion for as you pointed out much of what I believe has been misconstrued. First of all I believe that the populace both believers and non believers alike fail in their understanding of what the message of scripture really is. The reason for this in my opinion is that the proclaimed and errant message that has been broadcasted by religion for so long has come under attack (and rightly so), but the attackers generally equate the message put forth by religion with what is actually contained in the writings and making that assumption is a mistake.

Concepts like an eternal burning hell, the holy trinity, original sin, the promise of the righteous dying then going to Heaven, the immortality of the soul, and the need for post 1st century believers to preach to "lost souls" that they must join a religion are all not scriptural. It is my contention that organized man made religion is in fact what is "heretical" to what is taught in scripture.

I wish those who study the Bible whether it be to criticize it or to follow it would treat it like other works of literature that one studies by reading it without religious blinders as much as possible as well as by keeping things in the proper context historically and based on what the authors of the respective passages dictate. In doing so, a better understanding can be reached.

So to be honest and hopefully humble in my arrogance, I believe I undersatnd the message of scripture better than most theologians because I do not read it to defend or uphold a doctrine, my goal in studying it is simply to understand what it actually proclaims.

Thanks Screwtape for this suggestion for as you pointed out much of what I believe has been misconstrued. First of all I believe that the populace both believers and non believers alike fail in their understanding of what the message of scripture really is.

But... believing that the bible as a whole has one overriding message is a giant preconcieved notion, don't you think? Espeically since it's common knowledge that it's a collection of 66 books written at different times, by different people. If you want to assess it like any other work of literature, then you must first entertain the idea that it might just be 66 different books with no single message.

What do you say to the people who have read the bible and come away with the belief that there is no "one" message of scripture? To those who believe that many, MANY theologically defensible messages can be gleaned by reading the bible? And what about those who believe that the bible is simply a collection of 66 books written at different times, by different people, with different agendas to push, and often quite different belief systems?

Given the often contradictory nature of so many of the biblical stories (eye for an eye versus turn the other cheek... faith alone versus faith with works... God is love, but also orders killing on massive scales, etc), how can you make the claim that scripture has "one" overriding message?

Do you think you could be wrong about it? If not, can you please tell me where that logic goes awry?

The reason for this in my opinion is that the proclaimed and errant message that has been broadcasted by religion for so long has come under attack (and rightly so), but the attackers generally equate the message put forth by religion with what is actually contained in the writings and making that assumption is a mistake.

How so? If the only data we actually have about God is contained in one book, then how can an understanding of those writings lead one to make false or misleading assumptions? Be serious here, Truth OT. There is no external evidence in our daily lives that the Christian God exists. None. Believing in the Christian God is not a conclusion that any sane human can come to without having at least heard of the bible.

If the message of religion is not contained in the bible, then why should we think anything other than you're making it up as you go?

Concepts like an eternal burning hell, the holy trinity, original sin, the promise of the righteous dying then going to Heaven, the immortality of the soul, and the need for post 1st century believers to preach to "lost souls" that they must join a religion are all not scriptural.

Have you read the bible? Original sin might not be in there, but the holy trinity is mentioned (once, in John). Hell is described quite a few times with gnashing of teeth, and unquenchable fire, etc.

It is my contention that organized man made religion is in fact what is "heretical" to what is taught in scripture.

Man made religion, true. But couldn't it just as easily be assumed that the entire thing was made up instead of taking the extra step and saying what they taught was "heretical"? Just like every other religion in the world? Remember now, you said you were going to be honest with yourself. Can you please point to why you believe this about Christianity and not about other religions?

I wish those who study the Bible whether it be to criticize it or to follow it would treat it like other works of literature that one studies by reading it without religious blinders as much as possible as well as by keeping things in the proper context historically and based on what the authors of the respective passages dictate. In doing so, a better understanding can be reached.

I think every atheist in the world would agree with you here. The problem for you is that if you study the bible as you study any other work of literature, you will not come to the conclusion that any of it is real. That's just not possible. That's why faith was created. Because they knew nobody would believe the stuff written inside.

For instance, there is talk of unicorns, giants, people living in fish for days, walking on water... all of which, if you read it in ANY other book, would instantly send up a red flag in your mind that these are FICTIONAL stories. Given what you just said here, how could you ever conclude that the bible is anything more than fiction? A man resurrected 3 days after he died, in any other work of literature, would automatically flag the work as fiction. Use that same deduction on the bible and see what you get.

So to be honest and hopefully humble in my arrogance, I believe I undersatnd the message of scripture better than most theologians because I do not read it to defend or uphold a doctrine, my goal in studying it is simply to understand what it actually proclaims. [/quote]

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

I wish those who study the Bible whether it be to criticize it or to follow it would treat it like other works of literature that one studies by reading it without religious blinders as much as possible as well as by keeping things in the proper context historically and based on what the authors of the respective passages dictate. In doing so, a better understanding can be reached.

Forgive me but, if one reads the Bible as any other work of literature, one must first categorise it. It is inescapably authoritarian; it does not ask the reader what the solution might be, it tells them and brooks no opposition.

That it might contain a nugget of wisdom here or there is irrelevant – it has damaged and will continue to damage mankind and society. It also mires people in spending time justifying stupidities.

Quote

So to be honest and hopefully humble in my arrogance, I believe I understand the message of scripture better than most theologians

Despite your protestations, this cannot be so. I have seen nothing in your writing so far to the effect that you read Hebrew and Koine Greek or that you are widely read in theology and the culture in and around Judea from, say 3,000BC to 200AD.

Quote

because I do not read it to defend or uphold a doctrine,

and neither do a lot of genuine theologians. Theologians are not merely on the side of God, they are interested in the whys and wherefores, the history, the culture and where Bronze-Age fantasy meets fact and where it does not.

Quote

my goal in studying it is simply to understand what it actually proclaims.

The question is, “How do you do that without reference to exterior texts written by theologians, historians, anthropologists, archaeologists, etc?”

It is completely impossible to simply come to decisions on what you think it means. Do you not see that that is exactly what the founding fathers of the various sects and churches did? The very ones you criticise.

The more I read of your writings, the more I am convinced that you are creating a personal god for yourself in abstraction. SPAG…

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

As was stated, the books that make up the Bible are difficult to understand properly with being able to reference the history and culture of the audience to whom individual books were written. This means that employing outside sources of historical value are a great asset in helping to develop a proper understanding. Before I continue, let me say for the record that studying this book for and determining what it is I agree with is irrelavent as my opinion has no baring on what the message or messages given therein are. The goal is not to cherry pick it or even to side or not side with it, the initial goal is to properly understand what it is relaying to the reader.

Quote

What do you say to the people who have read the bible and come away with the belief that there is no "one" message of scripture? To those who believe that many, MANY theologically defensible messages can be gleaned by reading the bible? And what about those who believe that the bible is simply a collection of 66 books written at different times, by different people, with different agendas to push, and often quite different belief systems?

Those people would have a point. The Bible is a collection of books written by various authors from many different times with differing points of views and different agendas. The overwhelming majority of the writers of the books never mentioned or implied that there was or that they were aware of God's "endgame" and purpose. Paul and possibly John seem to be the only writers who delves into that territory by speaking as if he'd been made aware of what the purpose was.

And who says one has to first catagorize something in order to read it. That's simply not the case. People are better served to read works, let the work catagorize themselves, then the work catagorizes itself as a work of fact, then examine its claim under the critical eye of evidence and history to see if it is what it claims to be.

As far as the Bible's overriding message or at least the biggest and most repeated theme the reader can see throughout is that there is a God and that He controls the fate of man.

I wish those who study the Bible whether it be to criticize it or to follow it would treat it like other works of literature that one studies by reading it without religious blinders as much as possible as well as by keeping things in the proper context historically and based on what the authors of the respective passages dictate. In doing so, a better understanding can be reached.

The problem is that looking at the bible as a piece of literature......it's the shittiest piece of writing ever put to paper. This isn't even me speaking as an atheist. It's simply speaking as an english and literature student. It sucks hard.

The bible breaks every single rule of good writing that I can think of and tramples the shards into the dirt. The main characters (god in the OT and Jesus in the NT) are complete morons, who do things in the most ridiculous and inefficient ways possible for no particular reason. They repeatedly make the same mistakes over and over again. In fact the entire NT is one huge example of picking up the Idiot Ball and running with it, as god could have accomplished everything that he had wanted to accomplish in one paragraph of writing and three seconds of his time.

Satan goes from apparently serving under god in the OT to being his nemesis in the NT. And is furthermore now stupidly evil, for no apparent reason other than the fact that it seems someone had to be.

The sheer number of plotholes in the bible are gigantic. It's messages are all over the place and inconsistent even within the same story. The characters are flat and two-dimensional, not to mention glaringly inconsistent in their behaviour. Most of gods qualities are merely Informed Abilities, as nothing done in the bible actually shows that he has any of the qualities he's commonly assigned.

The motive of most of the characters make no sense, and even when they do make sense their attempts to implement it make no sense.

Jesus' sacrifice is essentially for no purpose (one of many pointless scenes in the bible).

It's wrong about knowledge that even people of the time period it was written in could have had access to.

I could go on and on for a lot longer, but the bottomline, the bible is the worst piece of literature I'm aware of. It fails as a work of literature on every conceivable level.

How do you gain understanding from something like that? The only thing to understand is that it's a perfect demonstration of how far people will carry their fandom. If you really want to get meaning from a piece of writing and gain insight from it, why not pick something that's actually well-written? The bible is such a tangled mess of writing that you can't gain any sort of knowledge from it.

I believe I understand the message of scripture better than most theologians

This is the thing though. All you have is "I believe". This is not humble, it is actually very arrogant to say that your unevidenced belief is somehow above practical reality. Why is your "I believe" better than anyone elses?

my goal in studying it is simply to understand what it actually proclaims.

But this is not possible without any kind of outside reference to use. Not to mention the aforementioned flaws that exist within the narrative. To actually understand what it contains would require some sort of evidence to use. And this is something that you do not possess.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

In the interests of better elaborating on what I said above, let's look at it this way.

The bible says that anyone who believes in god can move mountains through prayer. A lot of Christians try to claim that this is just a metaphor. Which might be a fair point if it weren't for the fact that there's no way to tell the difference as far as the bible is written.

If I were writing a fantasy novel about a group of mages locked in battle during a war I might choose to use the phrase "they rained fire down upon their enemies". Now given the setting it is entirely possible that I meant this as a literal even within the narrative (ie. the mages really did cast spells that caused fire to rain down), or I could have simply meant it as a metaphor for them soundly beating their enemy. In order to know the difference you would have to look at the rest of the rest of the narrative that you've been reading, which should make it self-evident which one I actually meant (in a good example of writing).

In the bible however, how does one determine that this bit about moving mountains is a metaphor? After all, the people who use the bible automatically assume that the character it depicts is all-poweful. So if he says that those who pray to him can move mountains, what reason do we have to think it's a metaphor? If we look at the rest of the narrative to try and figure the answer out, what do we see? We see the sloppy mess of ideas that the bible presents. There is so little consistency or basic logic shown in the book that Christians still can't even adequately define their god. Let alone make valid claims about him and what he wants.

This makes a literary examination impossible, unless you make the assumption that everything in the bible is meant literally. Because there is no way to tell the figurative language apart from everything else. And no way of knowing what the figurative parts are meant to be.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

The bible says that anyone who believes in god can move mountains through prayer. A lot of Christians try to claim that this is just a metaphor. Which might be a fair point if it weren't for the fact that there's no way to tell the difference as far as the bible is written.

In the bible however, how does one determine that this bit about moving mountains is a metaphor? After all, the people who use the bible automatically assume that the character it depicts is all-poweful. So if he says that those who pray to him can move mountains, what reason do we have to think it's a metaphor? If we look at the rest of the narrative to try and figure the answer out, what do we see? We see the sloppy mess of ideas that the bible presents. There is so little consistency or basic logic shown in the book that Christians still can't even adequately define their god. Let alone make valid claims about him and what he wants.

This makes a literary examination impossible, unless you make the assumption that everything in the bible is meant literally. Because there is no way to tell the figurative language apart from everything else. And no way of knowing what the figurative parts are meant to be.

I am with you as far as the idea that it may not be a metaphor goes as the context doesn't give us reason to believe that's the case. One thing to note is that Jesus did not say all believers would be able to do this anymore than his reference to preparing a place in his Father's house was applicable to anyone besides those to whom he spoke directly to.

Before I continue, let me say for the record that studying this book for and determining what it is I agree with is irrelavent as my opinion has no baring on what the message or messages given therein are.

In the interests of better elaborating on what I said above, let's look at it this way.

The bible says that anyone who believes in god can move mountains through prayer. A lot of Christians try to claim that this is just a metaphor. Which might be a fair point if it weren't for the fact that there's no way to tell the difference as far as the bible is written.[...] And no way of knowing what the figurative parts are meant to be.

The Gospel According to Brian:

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Have you not simply prayed for perfect bible clarity and understanding? According to the bible he will grant it. It is his will (purpose of the bible to begin with), and it is a righteous request. Jesus reiterated the power of prayer. If this prayer fails, rest assured the Christian religion is nonsense.

Pray it now, then come back to the forum and let us test you, to see if it worked!

The bible says that anyone who believes in god can move mountains through prayer. A lot of Christians try to claim that this is just a metaphor. Which might be a fair point if it weren't for the fact that there's no way to tell the difference as far as the bible is written.

In the bible however, how does one determine that this bit about moving mountains is a metaphor? After all, the people who use the bible automatically assume that the character it depicts is all-poweful. So if he says that those who pray to him can move mountains, what reason do we have to think it's a metaphor? If we look at the rest of the narrative to try and figure the answer out, what do we see? We see the sloppy mess of ideas that the bible presents. There is so little consistency or basic logic shown in the book that Christians still can't even adequately define their god. Let alone make valid claims about him and what he wants.

This makes a literary examination impossible, unless you make the assumption that everything in the bible is meant literally. Because there is no way to tell the figurative language apart from everything else. And no way of knowing what the figurative parts are meant to be.

I am with you as far as the idea that it may not be a metaphor goes as the context doesn't give us reason to believe that's the case. One thing to note is that Jesus did not say all believers would be able to do this anymore than his reference to preparing a place in his Father's house was applicable to anyone besides those to whom he spoke directly to.

It's amazing how much of everything I said sails completely over his head.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

So to be honest and hopefully humble in my arrogance, I believe I undersatnd the message of scripture better than most theologians because I do not read it to defend or uphold a doctrine, my goal in studying it is simply to understand what it actually proclaims.

ToT, I am going to ask the most important question in the world. It is the question that the US criminal justice system is based one. It is the question Science[1] is based on. It is the question you should ask whenever some tries to tell you something. Are you ready for it? Here it is....

How do you know? How do you know you are right?

Be rigorous. Be skeptical. And as Dr Robert Feynman once said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

The bible says that anyone who believes in god can move mountains through prayer. A lot of Christians try to claim that this is just a metaphor. Which might be a fair point if it weren't for the fact that there's no way to tell the difference as far as the bible is written.

In the bible however, how does one determine that this bit about moving mountains is a metaphor? After all, the people who use the bible automatically assume that the character it depicts is all-poweful. So if he says that those who pray to him can move mountains, what reason do we have to think it's a metaphor? If we look at the rest of the narrative to try and figure the answer out, what do we see? We see the sloppy mess of ideas that the bible presents. There is so little consistency or basic logic shown in the book that Christians still can't even adequately define their god. Let alone make valid claims about him and what he wants.

This makes a literary examination impossible, unless you make the assumption that everything in the bible is meant literally. Because there is no way to tell the figurative language apart from everything else. And no way of knowing what the figurative parts are meant to be.

I am with you as far as the idea that it may not be a metaphor goes as the context doesn't give us reason to believe that's the case. One thing to note is that Jesus did not say all believers would be able to do this anymore than his reference to preparing a place in his Father's house was applicable to anyone besides those to whom he spoke directly to.

It's amazing how much of everything I said sails completely over his head.

Smelling yourself a bit I see...........Trying to depict another as ignorant and stupid whether that is actually the case or not in order to make yourself seem informed and intelligent in a vanity of vanities. Rest assured I understood what you said and my response was intented to give credit where due as well point out a point of disagreement. I disagree with the foundtion of your argument that all believers are promised to be able to move mountians via their faith. My contention is that what the text actually reveals is that those, and exclusively those to whom Jesus spoke was made that promise whether the mountain moving was figurative or not.

Smelling yourself a bit I see...........Trying to depict another as ignorant and stupid whether that is actually the case or not in order to make yourself seem informed and intelligent in a vanity of vanities. Rest assured I understood what you said and my response was intented to give credit where due as well point out a point of disagreement. I disagree with the foundtion of your argument that all believers are promised to be able to move mountians via their faith. My contention is that what the text actually reveals is that those, and exclusively those to whom Jesus spoke was made that promise whether the mountain moving was figurative or not.

Deep breath.... Have you any idea how silly you come across?

Quote

actually the case or not in order to make yourself seem informed and intelligent in a vanity of vanities

Quote

my response was intented to give credit where due as well point out a point of disagreement. I disagree with the foundtion of your argument that all believers are promised to be able to move mountians

2nd deep breath.

I really really want you to read the above. Now read it again. You can't even spell let alone string a sentence together. You're rambling and incoherent. You got the bug.

Now, the subject matter.... the idiocy of the whole "god" thing. Take a step back and look at yourself from a third persons perspective.

Quote

I believe I undersatnd the message of scripture better than most theologians

Disregarding your inability to spell the word "understand", can't you see that you're exactly like the worst of worst preachers? "Everyone else is wrong but I know". WTF is the matter with you? Can't you see for a minute that you just look like an idiot when you proclaim to exceed the understanding of those who devote a lifetime to study and understanding?

I suppose you also say that Mark 16:9-20 was for certain "specific" christians, not you.

Well, since the bible is the perfect word of god, and god is the perfect communicator, how could there be confusion as to whom he is speaking?

Unless of course you've had a faulty baptism rite and haven't been granted access to the holy spirit yet.. now that would be bad.. (Acts 19)

1st of all, the contents of Mark 16 following verse 9 is considered by historians and scholars to be a spurious addition to the original text. Secondly, were it not spurious I would tell you that making an application of what is says applicable to you or I is an error as we are not the audience to whom Jesus was delivering those specific instructions and promises.

ahh so you think that all of the other millions of christians that claim they do, are lying and therefore false?

I can honestly say that I do not believe their claims, however, my belief in them has no bearing or whether their claims are true or not. I just beliee their claims are unfounded and baseless, but hey, that just 1 man's opinion.

This first question is totally from left field, but due to your habdle being Screwtape I gotta ask you; Are you from the Southside of the H-Town?

Now, to answer your question. I do not and cannot know whether what I believe is true. I can only say I believe it to be true based on the info I have and data I have been presented with and how I understand it. I could be wrong, and were I to say that me being incorrect was not in the realm of possibility I would be both dishonest and incouragebly arrogant. New data can be presented that could prove me wrong or I could gain new knowledge of the existing data that would cause me to change my beliefs. Only fact and truth is set in stone, my opinions can be changed provided their is reasonable evidence to prompt such a change. They have changed before, who knows, maybe they'll change again.

______@ Am Pony

I am the financial services industry. I have a background in mathmatics and in a former life (back in the day) became an ordained minister, so I am familiar with the teachings and goings on od divinity schools.

When you ask what messages I disagree with, will you clarify what you mean? Are you asking me to tell you what I believe the Bible says that is true and what I believe to be false as well or are you asking me whether or not I agree with the God of the Bible?

^ this one, pretty much. Which messages, from the bible's central deity, do you disagree with? Do you agree with every message you uncover as you study the text?

Much I do agree with, other things I fail to understand the reason behind or the logic for. Those things I honestly reserve judgment on until I can come to an understanding. Admittedly I march carefully in that territory due to my reverence and fear of the God of the Bible. Wish I could give a before more intellectual answer, but attempting to do so would be dishonest.

ahh so you think that all of the other millions of christians that claim they do, are lying and therefore false?

I can honestly say that I do not believe their claims, however, my belief in them has no bearing or whether their claims are true or not. I just believe their claims are unfounded and baseless, but hey, that just 1 man's opinion.

So what exactly is the difference between a gospel writer in the year 75 ad and today's christian that claims to talk to jesus? You believe him because you think making shit up is a new phenomena?